Historic & Design Review Commission Meeting - December 17, 2025

The Historic and Design Review Commission convened at 3:00 PM on December 17, 2025, with all commissioners present except for an initial recusal by Commissioner Fetzer and a subsequent recusal by Commissioner Savino. The meeting began with the approval of the December 3rd minutes and the 2026 meeting schedule. A consent agenda was discussed, featuring 15 items, with items 3, 7, 12, and 13 pulled for individual review. Public testimony was heard on various properties regarding historic landmark designations, tax verifications, and proposed additions. Following deliberation, the commission voted on multiple Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) requests, resulting in approvals with stipulations, DRC (Design Review Commission) referrals, and a split vote leading to further discussion.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of December 3, 2025, meeting minutes (Motion carried).
• Approval of the 2026 meeting schedule (First and third Wednesdays, resuming January 21, 2026).
• Approval of Case 1 (1041 West Agarita Ave), Case 2 (1315 East Elmira), Case 4 (110 Lata), Case 5 (611 Mason), Case 6 (414 Navarro), Case 8 (219 Ferndale), Case 9 (327 West Summit), Case 10 (329 Madison), Case 11 (708 Mason), Case 14 (1103 Cincinnati), and Case 15 (433 Madison) with staff stipulations.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Eduardo Meza (1041 West Agarita Ave): Expressed full support for the landmark designation of his 1919 home, citing its integrity as a Beacon Hill example and its role in reinforcing the neighborhood's historic character.
• Barbara Woodhouse (River Road Neighborhood Historic Resources Committee): Stated a position requiring pre-review by the committee for Case 13 (142 Armor Place) to protect neighborhood character before final consideration.
• Bill Ailer (134 Armor Place): Expressed clear support for Case 13, acknowledging the applicant's mitigation efforts regarding drainage and view concerns.
• Jim McKennedy (509 River Road): Expressed no objection to Case 13, noting that the applicant, Jim Bailey, has offered specific mitigations for drainage, view obstruction, and sound that address neighbors' concerns.
• Monroe Brown (758 East Woodlawn Ave): Expressed full support for Case 13, describing the plans as modest improvements that enhance the site formerly filled with trash.
• Bianca Maldonado (Monatello Park Neighborhood Association): Expressed wholehearted support for the improvements at Woodlawn Lake Park (Case 14), thanking city staff and council.
• Lulu Francois (Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee): Stated opposition to Case 7 (322 Lamar) for historical tax verification, arguing that the applicant failed to re-install fish-scale siding as previously stipulated by the HDRC.

Discussion Items

Item 3: 9800 Airport Boulevard (New Walkway / 1322 Shadow Design)

• Applicant Position: Explained that the Y-shaped columns of the historic Building 1322 were intentionally not replicated vertically to avoid "faux historicism" cheapening the original structure. Instead, the design uses the Y-shape as a shadow/paving element and commemorative signage.
• Commissioner Savino & Mazuka Positions: Expressed strong preference for incorporating vertical, three-dimensional, or shadow elements higher up to better reflect the iconic nature of Building 1322, noting the current ground-level shadow may not be visible from the road.
• Commissioner Fetzer Position: Expressed concern that the current design lacks sufficient vertical reference to the historic building's significance.
• Outcome: The initial motion to approve failed (3 Aye, 4 Nay due to split vote). The motion was passed to Design Review Commission (DRC) for further discussion.

Item 7: 322 Lamar (Historic Tax Verification)

• Issue: Community concern regarding unapproved replacement of fish-scale siding with wood shake painted to look similar (not in-kind) despite prior administrative approval after a fire.
• Applicant Position (Gus de la Rosa): Acknowledged the difficulty in finding original 100-year-old fish-scale material, stating a lack of funding to continue searching but promising to install original material if found. Admitted the administrative COA process error regarding the siding specification.
• Staff Position: Stated the applicant had received administrative approval for the material in-kind (wood to wood) and no formal violation exists, though the documentation needed updating.
• Commissioner Savino Position: Expressed concern over the procedure of approving work without issuing COAs and the impact on the facade.
• Commissioner Holland & Group Positions: Expressed support for the applicant, noting they followed the approved administrative path and that internal procedural errors should not penalize the applicant.
• Outcome: Motion to approve with stipulations to address future material replacement if salvageable material is found carried.

Item 12: 354 East West Avenue (Ridge Height Increase)

• Issue: Applicant requested to raise the roof ridge by 4 feet (lifting the roof off the existing plate) to increase attic space, which alters the Tudor Revival proportions.
• Commissioner Savino Position: Expressed strong opposition to increasing the plate height by 4 feet, calling it an aberration that destroys the historic proportion of the house.
• Commissioner Group Position: Expressed confusion and lack of support due to the visible change in proportion; suggested the applicant withdraw and re-apply with a design that maintains original plate height or justifies the change with clearer sections.
• Outcome: Initial motion to approve was withdrawn. A motion to send to DRC for further review of attic space justification and sections carried.

Item 13: 142 Armor Place (Accessory Structures)

• Applicant Position (Jim Bailey): Shared all concerns raised by neighbors regarding drainage, views, and trees. Expressed commitment to working with neighbors to implement mitigation measures (vines, fences, drainage swales).
• Commissioner Group Position: Clarified that staff is recommending only conceptual approval for the studio, while the carport could be approved.
• Outcome: Motion to accept the request with staff stipulations and full neighbor consideration carried.

Item 16: 1315 East Piran Avenue (New Construction)

• Applicant Position (Jose Shiraud): Requested exceptions to set aside width of driveway (10 ft vs 16 ft), siding reveal (5 ft vs 8 ft), and garage setback (2 ft vs 3 ft) citing construction costs and vehicle maneuvering.
• Commissioner Mazooka Position: Expressed opposition to the wide driveway, stating it is not a valid reason for exemption and that historic standards should be maintained.
• Commissioner Fetzer & Group Positions: Recommended adjusting the entire house setback to align with the adjacent property (1319) to accommodate the driveway and match the streetscape, rather than keeping the garage close.
• Outcome: Motion to approve with stipulations (driveway tapering, siding exception, and full house setback alignment) carried.

Item 17: 418 East Locust (New Construction)

• Applicant Position (Joseph Smith): Defended the scale and massing, material choices (metal siding), and artificial turf as sustainable, noting alignment with conceptual approval.
• Commissioner Savino & Cervantes Positions: Expressed strong concern that the scale, massing, and modern materials do not belong on the block despite meeting letter-of-the-law guidelines. Believed the project looks like an anomaly.
• Commissioner Mazuka & Holland Positions: Expressed concern regarding the setback (being 6 inches in front of the adjacent house to the west) and the scale. Noted that moving the house back would reduce square footage.
• Staff Position: Did not recommend final approval due to unmet stipulations regarding setbacks, material, and landscaping.
• Outcome: Motion to approve with four stipulations (increase setback to be greater than adjacent structures, meet all setback standards, change to wood/fiber cement siding, install real grass) carried.

Item 18: 901 North Alamo Street (Exterior Stairway)

• Applicant Position (Edward Combs): Explained the stairway is required by code for 240 occupants to a balcony near a pickleball court. Cited fire code requiring a 3-foot separation from the firewall/grease trap line, preventing relocation to the north wall without losing a court.
• Commissioner Fetzer Position: Expressed opposition to the wood stairway in this location, suggesting non-combustible metal materials or further relocation options.
• Commissioner Savino Position: Expressed opposition, citing the stairway as a massive intrusion and encouraging reconsideration of material and location.
• Commissioner Savino & Mazuka Position (Reconciliation): While maintaining concerns, the majority voted based on the necessity of the egress and the existing fence mitigating visibility. The fence height (12 ft) was a key factor in the decision.
• Outcome: Motion to approve with stipulation that fencing be maintained and new fencing be 12 feet high carried (4 Aye, 3 Nay).

Key Outcomes

• Minutes & Schedule: Meeting minutes from Dec 3 and the 2026 schedule approved unanimously.
• Consent Agenda: 11 items approved with staff stipulations; 4 items (3, 7, 12, 13) pulled for individual discussion.
• 9800 Airport Blvd: Referred to DRC for further discussion on integrating vertical elements referencing Building 1322.
• 322 Lamar: Historial tax verification approved; stipulated that if original fish-scale siding is found, it should be re-installed.
• 354 East West Avenue: Referred to DRC to review building sections and justify attic height increase.
• 142 Armor Place: Approved with stipulations for neighbor engagement and drainage mitigation.
• 1315 East Piran Ave: Approved with stipulations for driveway design and full house setback alignment to match neighbors.
• 418 East Locust: Approved conditionally with four strict stipulations to address setback, massing, material, and landscaping.
• 901 North Alamo St: Approved with stipulation maintaining the 12-foot fence to screen the stairway.
• Next Meeting: January 21, 2026 (First and third Wednesdays format to continue).